The Hundred Years War

Split from "More shocking stats"

How about the 100 years war?

France won it, but I'm not entirely sure who started it...
Did we get cocky and grab for more than our lawful 2/3, or did the French simply try & oust us?

 

I am not familiar enough with it's origins but since God send Joan of Arc to help us, the english surely were the bad guys....

 

LOL!

Basic origin was that Eleanor of Aquitaine married our King, so we got her lands (2/3 of France). Obviously the French were unhappy, especially as we occaisionally rubbed their noses in it by claiming to be the king of France (see Henry V).

However, despite winning many spectacular battles, we could never really have won the war - our main source of manpower was England, as our 'French' subjects were of dubious loyalty. England could never spare as many men, or have as much resources, as France. The only reason it lasted so long was the spectacular victories - the French began to believe we were invincible, and avoid conflict with even small groups of English. Joan of Arc provided the French with a bit of a kick up the rear, proved the English could be beaten, and viola!
Ok, so that is an inccredible over-simplification...

 

Why doesn't Bertrand du Guesclin ever get the credit he deserves?

 

Du Guesclin was surely the best military leader on the french side in 100 years war, but the story of Joan of Arc is so "wonderfull" that it puts everything else in the shade.

Du Guesclin of course didn't deserve that....

 

Ah - he formulated the 'good sense' tactics of "don't fight people you can't beat - starve the buggers instead".
Joan of Arc had voices from God, fought in armour as a man (not actually uncommon, but not socially acceptable) and was burnt as a witch by the English.
Guess which is most glamourous?

 

Actually, du Guesclin fought the English with trickery and 'common man warfare', i.e. in their own game, instead of with obsolete chivalry codes and charging rains of longbowman fire. He beat the duke of Lancashire in his Brittany campaign (lifting the siege of Rennes), and the duke of Wales on several other occasions, and in reward he made it from the lowest nobility to the supreme command of the French army.

 

I may be thinking of a different guy -
Was du Guesclin the one who became head of the army, and ordered the French to go sit in their castles when the English launched raids, thereby denying the English raiders both the chance to win a battle, and the chance to get food, shelter etc?
His policies meant that the English raids (I never could spell chevaunchees) would go all over France (Aquitaine, to the Med, to Calais) but acheive little beyond the loss of 3/4 of their men to dysentary (and similar).
See the build-up to Agincourt for this.

 

24 bullets! Did someone think his gun had a fantically gentle recoil? I suppose in reality once they got into the noise and smoke of action a lot of poorly trained soldiers simply lost the plot and mechnically followed what little training they had received.

Read one short account of a Union soldier who reported going through at least 3 guns during the course of a battle. In the case of one the ram rod got shot out of his hand and it was easier to find a new gun than a new ram rod.

 

It was Edward III who started this charming tradition ( in 1340 ), a tradition that would last, with the exception of a couple of small interuptions, until 1801.

 

Every country has it peculiarities...

Wars of succession were really the dominating political events in European history for the whole period of 1300-1800. See the Spanish, Austrian wars of Succession and the Hundred Year's War.

 

Don't forget the Wars of the Roses in England.

 

Well, technically that was not a war of succession...

It began as an attempt to control the king (or at least to get control away from Margaret of Anjou), and ended as a succesion of attempts by both sides to overthrow the existing king.

(spot the pedant! )

 

It's not that hard. YOU!! :angry:



A true historian always tries to find exceptions rather than rules, I guess this is just being true to form, Ricky.

 

*takes a bow*

sorry corp, sometimes I get the urge to be thus...

 

When two sides are fighting it out to determine who is going to be king of England, I count that as a war of succession. 8)

 

Or a Civil War... "We want the Pretender!" "No, let's have a Dutchman instead!" :lol:

 

Well Corp, technically ( ) a war of succession (by it's very name) is one that happens after the old king pops his clogs and all the possible candidates fight over who gets to succeed him...
When you are fighting to control an existing king (and, in this case, to overthrow a existing king), well that is a rebellion. Or a civil war.

Pedantic Man strikes again!!
:roll:

 

I swear I will change your password if you go on like this.

 

Git 'im, Roel!!!